I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church? This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.

I think you need to be careful about that word "necessary". Catholic don't believe that Immaculate Conception had to happen in order for Christ to be born of Mary. We just believe that it was fitting that it happened.

That's what confuses me. If something is professed as dogma, it would seem a "necessary" component of the faith.

It wasn't necessary for God to bring about the miracle of the Immaculate Conception. But because he did, in fact, bring about the Immaculate Conception, it is necessary that we believe in it.

So the question isn't if it's necessary, but rather if it happened. But would God allow it to happen if it wasn't necessary for His incarnation, at least it wasn't necessary at her conception?

God does at times things that are not strictly "necessary" but because he wants to give gifts of love to his creation.

While true, you need substantiation of your claim that He did this, especially in view of the inherent contradictions.

Quote

You know, the crucifixion was not strictly "necessary".

Not quite sure about the correctness of this, beyond that God wasn't bound to do it.

Quote

God could have redeemed us in another way but he redeemed us in such an extreme way to show us how deeply he loves us.

But not enough to remove the stain from everyone, which would have removed the need for the Crucifixion.

Quote

The Immaculate Conception was not strictly "necessary" but was the God the Father's gift to his Son of an Immaculate and stainless mother

Thereby voiding the aim of the Incarnation.

Quote

It was a gift to humanity as a sign of our future.

It makes her the great exception rather than the great example.

Quote

It was a gift to the Blessed Virgin Mary, as the Mother of God's only Son.

Which she wasn't at the time of her conception.

It's amazing how oftne Isa here can be wrong on so many points.

It's amazing how often you can assert that and yet not demonstrate that on a single point.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church? This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.

You would be much closer to the Catholic point of view if you say that the Catholic asks if it is good, if it is possible, if it fits better with Tradition to indicate that the person of the Theotokos never was separated from the saving grace of the Divine Trinity. To us the answer is that it is possible, and that it is good, and that it fits well with Tradition to say that the Theotokos was never separated from the saving grace of God.

How could she (or anyone) have possessed the saving grace of God before Christ fully redeemed mankind through his birth, life, death, resurrection? Are you asserting that there was a way for a person to possess saving grace before the incarnation of the Theanthropos, i.e. God-man?

Quote

If that's the case, then why didn't God just forgo the whole incarnation thing and instead make us all born immaculately then? Seems alot easier.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church? This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.

You would be much closer to the Catholic point of view if you say that the Catholic asks if it is good, if it is possible, if it fits better with Tradition to indicate that the person of the Theotokos never was separated from the saving grace of the Divine Trinity. To us the answer is that it is possible, and that it is good, and that it fits well with Tradition to say that the Theotokos was never separated from the saving grace of God.

II Cor. 5:21 Rom. 3:23.

Read the Doctor's prescription:

Quote

All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and know, and honour , seeking for nothing beyond these. As knowing all things, therefore, and providing for what is profitable for each, He revealed that which it was to our profit to know; but what we were unable to bear He kept secret. With these things let us be satisfied, and let us abide by them, not removing everlasting boundaries, nor overpassing the divine tradition

That would be some better rather than always going back to the trough of necessity, because that is something added on by outsiders....

Duns Scotus should have thought about that before he rationalized the IC into acceptance by your ecclesiastical community.

So, your St. Bernard of Clairveaux and St. Bonaventure are outside and foreign to your dogmas?

Quote

2Corinthians 5:21 Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in him.

Has been interpreted as Jesus was a "victim of our sin" or a "sin offering".

Has been interpreted by whom?

Quote

Is this how you are reading it?

Not exactly.

Quote

'I say nothing of what has gone before, that you have outraged Him, Him that had done you no wrong, Him that had done you good, that He exacted not justice, that He is first to beseech, though first outraged; let none of these things be set down at present. Ought ye not in justice to be reconciled for this one thing only that He has done to you now?' And what has He done? Him that knew no sin He made to be sin, for you. For had He achieved nothing but done only this, think how great a thing it were to give His Son for those that had outraged Him. But now He has both well achieved mighty things, and besides, has suffered Him that did no wrong to be punished for those who had done wrong. But he did not say this: but mentioned that which is far greater than this. What then is this? Him that knew no sin, he says, Him that was righteousness itself , He made sin, that is suffered as a sinner to be condemned, as one cursed to die. For cursed is he that hangs on a tree. Galatians 3:13 For to die thus was far greater than to die; and this he also elsewhere implying, says, Becoming obedient unto death, yea the death of the cross. Philippians 2:8 For this thing carried with it not only punishment, but also disgrace. Reflect therefore how great things He bestowed on you. For a great thing indeed it were for even a sinner to die for any one whatever; but when He who undergoes this both is righteous and dies for sinners; and not dies only, but even as one cursed; and not as cursed [dies] only, but thereby freely bestows upon us those great goods which we never looked for; (for he says, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him;) what words, what thought shall be adequate to realize these things? 'For the righteous,' says he, 'He made a sinner; that He might make the sinners righteous.' Yea rather, he said not even so, but what was greater far; for the word he employed is not the habit, but the quality itself. For he said not made [Him] a sinner, but sin; not, 'Him that had not sinned' only, but that had not even known sin; that we also might become, he did not say 'righteous,' but, righteousness, and, the righteousness of God. For this is [the righteousness] of God when we are justified not by works, (in which case it were necessary that not a spot even should be found,) but by grace, in which case all sin is done away. And this at the same time that it suffers us not to be lifted up, (seeing the whole is the free gift of God,) teaches us also the greatness of that which is given. For that which was before was a righteousness of the Law and of works, but this is the righteousness of God.

6. Reflecting then on these things, let us fear these words more than hell; let us reverence the things [they express] more than the kingdom, and let us not deem it grievous to be punished, but to sin. For were He not to punish us, we ought to take vengeance on ourselves, who have been so ungrateful towards our Benefactor. Now he that has an object of affection, has often even slain himself, when unsuccessful in his love; and though successful, if he has been guilty of a fault towards her, counts it not fit that he should even live; and shall not we, when we outrage One so loving and gentle, cast ourselves into the fire of hell? Shall I say something strange, and marvellous, and to many perhaps incredible? To one who has understanding and loves the Lord as it behooves to love Him, there will be greater comfort if punished after provoking One so loving, than if not punished. And this one may see by the common practice. For he that has wronged his dearest friend feels then the greatest relief, when he has wreaked vengeance on himself and suffered evil. And accordingly David said, I the shepherd have sinned, and I the shepherd have done amiss; and these the flock, what have they done? Let Your hand be upon me, and upon my father's house. 2 Samuel 24:17. Septuagint And when he lost Absalom he wreaked the extremest vengeance upon himself, although he was not the injurer but the injured; but nevertheless, because he loved the departed exceedingly, he racked himself with anguish, in this manner comforting himself. Let us therefore also, when we sin against Him Whom we ought not to sin against, take vengeance on ourselves. See you not those who have lost true-born children, that they therefore both beat themselves and tear their hair, because to punish themselves for the sake of those they loved carries comfort with it. But if, when we have caused no harm to those dearest to us, to suffer because of what has befallen them brings consolation; when we ourselves are the persons who have given provocation and wrong, will it not much rather be a relief to us to suffer the penalty and will not the being unpunished punish? Every one in a manner will see this. If any love Christ as it behooves to love Him, he knows what I say; how, even when He forgives, he will not endure to go unpunished; for you undergo the severest punishment in having provoked Him. And I know indeed that I am speaking what will not be believed by the many; but nevertheless it is so as I have said. If then we love Christ as it behooves to love Him, we shall punish ourselves when we sin. For to those who love any whomsover, not the suffering somewhat because they have provoked the beloved one is unpleasing; but above all, that they have provoked the person loved. And if this last when angered does not punish, he has tortured his lover more; but if he exacts satisfaction, he has comforted him rather. Let us therefore not fear hell, but offending God; for it is more grievous than that when He turns away in wrath: this is worse than all, this heavier than all. And that you may learn what a thing it is, consider this which I say. If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under punishment, gave his well-beloved son, his only-begotten and true, to be slain; and transferred the death and the guilt as well, from him to his son, (who was himself of no such character,) that he might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation ; and then if, having subsequently promoted him to great dignity, he had yet, after thus saving him and advancing him to that glory unspeakable, been outraged by the person that had received such treatment: would not that man, if he had any sense, have chosen ten thousand deaths rather than appear guilty of so great ingratitude? This then let us also now consider with ourselves, and groan bitterly for the provocations we have offered our Benefactor; nor let us therefore presume, because though outraged He bears it with long-suffering; but rather for this very reason be full of remorse. For among men too, when one that has been smitten on the right cheek offers the left also, he more avenges himself than if he gave ten thousand blows; and when one that has been reviled, not only reviles not again but even blesses, he has stricken [his adversary] more heavily, than if he rained upon him ten thousand reproaches. Now if in the case of men we feel ashamed when offering insults we meet with long-suffering; much rather, in respect to God, ought they to be afraid who go on continually sinning yet suffer no calamity. For, even for evil unto their own heads is the unspeakable punishment treasured up for them. These things then bearing in mind, let us above all things be afraid of sin; for this is punishment, this is hell, this is ten thousand ills. And let us not only be afraid of, but also flee from it, and strive to please God continually; for this is the kingdom, this is life, this is ten thousand goods. So shall we also even here obtain already the kingdom and the good things to come; whereunto may we all attain, through the grace and love towards men of our Lord Jesus Christ; with Whom to the Father, with the Holy Spirit, be glory, might, honor, now and for ever, and world without end. Amen.

I am saying that thishttp://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marye1.htmhas not been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists, and so we do not receive, and know, and honour it, as it seeks beyond these. As knowing all things, therefore, and providing for what is profitable for each, God revealed that which it was to our profit to know; but what we were unable to bear He kept secret. With these things Pope Pius IX could not be satisfied, and let us abide by them, removing everlasting boundaries and overpassing the divine tradition

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church? This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.

You would be much closer to the Catholic point of view if you say that the Catholic asks if it is good, if it is possible, if it fits better with Tradition to indicate that the person of the Theotokos never was separated from the saving grace of the Divine Trinity. To us the answer is that it is possible, and that it is good, and that it fits well with Tradition to say that the Theotokos was never separated from the saving grace of God.

How could she (or anyone) have possessed the saving grace of God before Christ fully redeemed mankind through his birth, life, death, resurrection? Are you asserting that there was a way for a person to possess saving grace before the incarnation of the Theanthropos, i.e. God-man? If that's the case, then why didn't God just forgo the whole incarnation thing and instead make us all born immaculately then? Seems alot easier.

God is outside of time.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church? This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.

You would be much closer to the Catholic point of view if you say that the Catholic asks if it is good, if it is possible, if it fits better with Tradition to indicate that the person of the Theotokos never was separated from the saving grace of the Divine Trinity. To us the answer is that it is possible, and that it is good, and that it fits well with Tradition to say that the Theotokos was never separated from the saving grace of God.

How could she (or anyone) have possessed the saving grace of God before Christ fully redeemed mankind through his birth, life, death, resurrection? Are you asserting that there was a way for a person to possess saving grace before the incarnation of the Theanthropos, i.e. God-man? If that's the case, then why didn't God just forgo the whole incarnation thing and instead make us all born immaculately then? Seems alot easier.

God is outside of time.

Creation is not.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church? This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.

You would be much closer to the Catholic point of view if you say that the Catholic asks if it is good, if it is possible, if it fits better with Tradition to indicate that the person of the Theotokos never was separated from the saving grace of the Divine Trinity. To us the answer is that it is possible, and that it is good, and that it fits well with Tradition to say that the Theotokos was never separated from the saving grace of God.

How could she (or anyone) have possessed the saving grace of God before Christ fully redeemed mankind through his birth, life, death, resurrection? Are you asserting that there was a way for a person to possess saving grace before the incarnation of the Theanthropos, i.e. God-man? If that's the case, then why didn't God just forgo the whole incarnation thing and instead make us all born immaculately then? Seems alot easier.

God is outside of time.

Creation is not.

so?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church? This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.

You would be much closer to the Catholic point of view if you say that the Catholic asks if it is good, if it is possible, if it fits better with Tradition to indicate that the person of the Theotokos never was separated from the saving grace of the Divine Trinity. To us the answer is that it is possible, and that it is good, and that it fits well with Tradition to say that the Theotokos was never separated from the saving grace of God.

How could she (or anyone) have possessed the saving grace of God before Christ fully redeemed mankind through his birth, life, death, resurrection? Are you asserting that there was a way for a person to possess saving grace before the incarnation of the Theanthropos, i.e. God-man? If that's the case, then why didn't God just forgo the whole incarnation thing and instead make us all born immaculately then? Seems alot easier.

God is outside of time.

Creation is not.

so?

Ipso facto, the Incarnation occurs in Creation and therefore in time. Or do you hold He brought His body with Him, and only appeared to be born and crucified?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church? This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.

You would be much closer to the Catholic point of view if you say that the Catholic asks if it is good, if it is possible, if it fits better with Tradition to indicate that the person of the Theotokos never was separated from the saving grace of the Divine Trinity. To us the answer is that it is possible, and that it is good, and that it fits well with Tradition to say that the Theotokos was never separated from the saving grace of God.

How could she (or anyone) have possessed the saving grace of God before Christ fully redeemed mankind through his birth, life, death, resurrection? Are you asserting that there was a way for a person to possess saving grace before the incarnation of the Theanthropos, i.e. God-man? If that's the case, then why didn't God just forgo the whole incarnation thing and instead make us all born immaculately then? Seems alot easier.

God is outside of time.

Creation is not.

so?

Ipso facto, the Incarnation occurs in Creation and therefore in time. Or do you hold He brought His body with Him, and only appeared to be born and crucified?

And since God is outside of time, he can see the incarnation present before from all eternity and apply it's merits as he sees fit. He is God after all.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church? This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.

You would be much closer to the Catholic point of view if you say that the Catholic asks if it is good, if it is possible, if it fits better with Tradition to indicate that the person of the Theotokos never was separated from the saving grace of the Divine Trinity. To us the answer is that it is possible, and that it is good, and that it fits well with Tradition to say that the Theotokos was never separated from the saving grace of God.

That would be some better rather than always going back to the trough of necessity, because that is something added on by outsiders....

M.

Suppose your views fit only with a part of tradition, while the other part of tradition seems to support a different view. Would it be okay to end it with a "theologomenoun" rather than a dogma? Or is a dogma simply an acceptable belief, not always necessarily something that is not okay to reject (notice double negative).

Someone in another thread just quoted St. Ephrem as showing that the Incarnation of Christ "purified" the Theotokos by first sending the Holy Spirit upon her. That falls well within what I believe to be the tradition that the Theotokos was not immaculately conceived if she needed "purification."

« Last Edit: January 12, 2011, 02:14:24 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church? This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.

You would be much closer to the Catholic point of view if you say that the Catholic asks if it is good, if it is possible, if it fits better with Tradition to indicate that the person of the Theotokos never was separated from the saving grace of the Divine Trinity. To us the answer is that it is possible, and that it is good, and that it fits well with Tradition to say that the Theotokos was never separated from the saving grace of God.

That would be some better rather than always going back to the trough of necessity, because that is something added on by outsiders....

M.

Suppose your views fit only with a part of tradition, while the other part of tradition seems to support a different view. Would it be okay to end it with a "theologomenoun" rather than a dogma? Or is a dogma simply an acceptable belief, not always necessarily something that is not okay to reject (notice double negative).

Someone in another thread just quoted St. Ephrem as showing that the Incarnation of Christ "purified" the Theotokos by first sending the Holy Spirit upon her. That falls well within what I believe to be the tradition that the Theotokos was not immaculately conceived if she needed "purification."

The book of Hebrews also says that Christ was "made perfect" through suffering. Was he not already perfect?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church? This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.

You would be much closer to the Catholic point of view if you say that the Catholic asks if it is good, if it is possible, if it fits better with Tradition to indicate that the person of the Theotokos never was separated from the saving grace of the Divine Trinity. To us the answer is that it is possible, and that it is good, and that it fits well with Tradition to say that the Theotokos was never separated from the saving grace of God.

That would be some better rather than always going back to the trough of necessity, because that is something added on by outsiders....

M.

Suppose your views fit only with a part of tradition, while the other part of tradition seems to support a different view. Would it be okay to end it with a "theologomenoun" rather than a dogma? Or is a dogma simply an acceptable belief, not always necessarily something that is not okay to reject (notice double negative).

Someone in another thread just quoted St. Ephrem as showing that the Incarnation of Christ "purified" the Theotokos by first sending the Holy Spirit upon her. That falls well within what I believe to be the tradition that the Theotokos was not immaculately conceived if she needed "purification."

The book of Hebrews also says that Christ was "made perfect" through suffering. Was he not already perfect?

Perfection and purification are two different things. It is never written that Christ was "purified." But Christ did take humanity, and made it perfect, through growth in stature and wisdom, through "learning obedience" and through suffering. Perfection is a degree of growth, which befits the Incarnate Word's human nature; purification is a taking away of filth, which does not befit Christ at all.

« Last Edit: January 12, 2011, 02:42:21 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church? This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.

You would be much closer to the Catholic point of view if you say that the Catholic asks if it is good, if it is possible, if it fits better with Tradition to indicate that the person of the Theotokos never was separated from the saving grace of the Divine Trinity. To us the answer is that it is possible, and that it is good, and that it fits well with Tradition to say that the Theotokos was never separated from the saving grace of God.

That would be some better rather than always going back to the trough of necessity, because that is something added on by outsiders....

M.

Suppose your views fit only with a part of tradition, while the other part of tradition seems to support a different view. Would it be okay to end it with a "theologomenoun" rather than a dogma? Or is a dogma simply an acceptable belief, not always necessarily something that is not okay to reject (notice double negative).

Someone in another thread just quoted St. Ephrem as showing that the Incarnation of Christ "purified" the Theotokos by first sending the Holy Spirit upon her. That falls well within what I believe to be the tradition that the Theotokos was not immaculately conceived if she needed "purification."

The book of Hebrews also says that Christ was "made perfect" through suffering. Was he not already perfect?

Perfection and purification are two different things. It is never written that Christ was "purified." But Christ did take humanity, and made it perfect, through growth in stature and wisdom, and through suffering. Perfection is a degree of growth, which befits the Incarnate Word's human nature (he also "learned obedience"); purification is a taking away of filth, which does not befit Christ at all.

So you don't think that Christ was perfect even from the time of his Incarnation?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church? This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.

You would be much closer to the Catholic point of view if you say that the Catholic asks if it is good, if it is possible, if it fits better with Tradition to indicate that the person of the Theotokos never was separated from the saving grace of the Divine Trinity. To us the answer is that it is possible, and that it is good, and that it fits well with Tradition to say that the Theotokos was never separated from the saving grace of God.

That would be some better rather than always going back to the trough of necessity, because that is something added on by outsiders....

M.

Suppose your views fit only with a part of tradition, while the other part of tradition seems to support a different view. Would it be okay to end it with a "theologomenoun" rather than a dogma? Or is a dogma simply an acceptable belief, not always necessarily something that is not okay to reject (notice double negative).

Someone in another thread just quoted St. Ephrem as showing that the Incarnation of Christ "purified" the Theotokos by first sending the Holy Spirit upon her. That falls well within what I believe to be the tradition that the Theotokos was not immaculately conceived if she needed "purification."

The book of Hebrews also says that Christ was "made perfect" through suffering. Was he not already perfect?

Perfection and purification are two different things. It is never written that Christ was "purified." But Christ did take humanity, and made it perfect, through growth in stature and wisdom, and through suffering. Perfection is a degree of growth, which befits the Incarnate Word's human nature (he also "learned obedience"); purification is a taking away of filth, which does not befit Christ at all.

So you don't think that Christ was perfect even from the time of his Incarnation?

If perfection is a stage of growth, then He was perfect from day one, but gets more perfect day after day. God became man, and people would be like, "Wow, that's perfect!" God suffered, and people would be like, "Wow, that's even more perfect!"

« Last Edit: January 12, 2011, 02:47:00 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church? This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.

You would be much closer to the Catholic point of view if you say that the Catholic asks if it is good, if it is possible, if it fits better with Tradition to indicate that the person of the Theotokos never was separated from the saving grace of the Divine Trinity. To us the answer is that it is possible, and that it is good, and that it fits well with Tradition to say that the Theotokos was never separated from the saving grace of God.

That would be some better rather than always going back to the trough of necessity, because that is something added on by outsiders....

M.

Suppose your views fit only with a part of tradition, while the other part of tradition seems to support a different view. Would it be okay to end it with a "theologomenoun" rather than a dogma? Or is a dogma simply an acceptable belief, not always necessarily something that is not okay to reject (notice double negative).

Someone in another thread just quoted St. Ephrem as showing that the Incarnation of Christ "purified" the Theotokos by first sending the Holy Spirit upon her. That falls well within what I believe to be the tradition that the Theotokos was not immaculately conceived if she needed "purification."

The book of Hebrews also says that Christ was "made perfect" through suffering. Was he not already perfect?

Perfection and purification are two different things. It is never written that Christ was "purified." But Christ did take humanity, and made it perfect, through growth in stature and wisdom, and through suffering. Perfection is a degree of growth, which befits the Incarnate Word's human nature (he also "learned obedience"); purification is a taking away of filth, which does not befit Christ at all.

So you don't think that Christ was perfect even from the time of his Incarnation?

If perfection is a stage of growth, then He was perfect from day one, but gets more perfect day after day. God became man, and people would be like, "Wow, that's perfect!" God suffered, and people would be like, "Wow, that's even more perfect!"

And you don't think purity can work in the same way? You don't think that you will be more pure 1000 years after being in heaven than you were the day you entered heaven?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church? This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.

You would be much closer to the Catholic point of view if you say that the Catholic asks if it is good, if it is possible, if it fits better with Tradition to indicate that the person of the Theotokos never was separated from the saving grace of the Divine Trinity. To us the answer is that it is possible, and that it is good, and that it fits well with Tradition to say that the Theotokos was never separated from the saving grace of God.

That would be some better rather than always going back to the trough of necessity, because that is something added on by outsiders....

M.

Suppose your views fit only with a part of tradition, while the other part of tradition seems to support a different view. Would it be okay to end it with a "theologomenoun" rather than a dogma? Or is a dogma simply an acceptable belief, not always necessarily something that is not okay to reject (notice double negative).

Someone in another thread just quoted St. Ephrem as showing that the Incarnation of Christ "purified" the Theotokos by first sending the Holy Spirit upon her. That falls well within what I believe to be the tradition that the Theotokos was not immaculately conceived if she needed "purification."

The book of Hebrews also says that Christ was "made perfect" through suffering. Was he not already perfect?

Perfection and purification are two different things. It is never written that Christ was "purified." But Christ did take humanity, and made it perfect, through growth in stature and wisdom, and through suffering. Perfection is a degree of growth, which befits the Incarnate Word's human nature (he also "learned obedience"); purification is a taking away of filth, which does not befit Christ at all.

So you don't think that Christ was perfect even from the time of his Incarnation?

If perfection is a stage of growth, then He was perfect from day one, but gets more perfect day after day. God became man, and people would be like, "Wow, that's perfect!" God suffered, and people would be like, "Wow, that's even more perfect!"

And you don't think purity can work in the same way? You don't think that you will be more pure 1000 years after being in heaven than you were the day you entered heaven?

But purity is a washing away of something, taking away something that doesn't belong. It's not a stage of growth. Can we say of Christ that He was purified?

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church? This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.

You would be much closer to the Catholic point of view if you say that the Catholic asks if it is good, if it is possible, if it fits better with Tradition to indicate that the person of the Theotokos never was separated from the saving grace of the Divine Trinity. To us the answer is that it is possible, and that it is good, and that it fits well with Tradition to say that the Theotokos was never separated from the saving grace of God.

That would be some better rather than always going back to the trough of necessity, because that is something added on by outsiders....

M.

Suppose your views fit only with a part of tradition, while the other part of tradition seems to support a different view. Would it be okay to end it with a "theologomenoun" rather than a dogma? Or is a dogma simply an acceptable belief, not always necessarily something that is not okay to reject (notice double negative).

Someone in another thread just quoted St. Ephrem as showing that the Incarnation of Christ "purified" the Theotokos by first sending the Holy Spirit upon her. That falls well within what I believe to be the tradition that the Theotokos was not immaculately conceived if she needed "purification."

The book of Hebrews also says that Christ was "made perfect" through suffering. Was he not already perfect?

Perfection and purification are two different things. It is never written that Christ was "purified." But Christ did take humanity, and made it perfect, through growth in stature and wisdom, and through suffering. Perfection is a degree of growth, which befits the Incarnate Word's human nature (he also "learned obedience"); purification is a taking away of filth, which does not befit Christ at all.

So you don't think that Christ was perfect even from the time of his Incarnation?

If perfection is a stage of growth, then He was perfect from day one, but gets more perfect day after day. God became man, and people would be like, "Wow, that's perfect!" God suffered, and people would be like, "Wow, that's even more perfect!"

And you don't think purity can work in the same way? You don't think that you will be more pure 1000 years after being in heaven than you were the day you entered heaven?

But purity is a washing away of something, taking away something that doesn't belong. It's not a stage of growth. Can we say of Christ that He was purified?

No we can't say he was purified. I wonder if Mary's purification at the annunciation, suggested by St. Ephrem, might not mean what we think it does. I mean, I am with St. Augustine on this. I don't think that there should be any question of Mary's sinfulness.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

^ I wonder if this purification of Mary at the annuciation was like the purification of the Tabernacle in the OT. There was really technically nothing "impure" about the Tabernacle before hand. But God had Moses put it through purification rituals to show that it was set apart for God.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

^ I wonder if this purification of Mary at the annuciation was like the purification of the Tabernacle in the OT. There was really technically nothing "impure" about the Tabernacle before hand. But God had Moses put it through purification rituals to show that it was set apart for God.

I haven't done much reading on St. Ephraim. But I must say, after reading St. Jacob of Serugh, who pretty much clearly stated that the curse on Eve was lifted at the Annunciation, it seems clear to me that the purification done in the Syriac tradition that was done at the Annunciation meant the lifting of the curse that Eve brought upon us.

As for the OT vessels, I think a purification via water and oil was done right before the shekinah glory came. The vessels aren't "alive" nor do they have human rational souls. They are symbols of what we are, and more importantly perhaps of what the Theotokos is. So the "purification" of the vessels are a shadow of the purification of the womb of the Theotokos before the Logos would be incarnate of her, as well as a purification of our souls before the Holy Spirit chrismates us.

« Last Edit: January 12, 2011, 03:03:44 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church? This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.

You would be much closer to the Catholic point of view if you say that the Catholic asks if it is good, if it is possible, if it fits better with Tradition to indicate that the person of the Theotokos never was separated from the saving grace of the Divine Trinity. To us the answer is that it is possible, and that it is good, and that it fits well with Tradition to say that the Theotokos was never separated from the saving grace of God.

How could she (or anyone) have possessed the saving grace of God before Christ fully redeemed mankind through his birth, life, death, resurrection? Are you asserting that there was a way for a person to possess saving grace before the incarnation of the Theanthropos, i.e. God-man? If that's the case, then why didn't God just forgo the whole incarnation thing and instead make us all born immaculately then? Seems alot easier.

God is outside of time.

Creation is not.

so?

Ipso facto, the Incarnation occurs in Creation and therefore in time. Or do you hold He brought His body with Him, and only appeared to be born and crucified?

And since God is outside of time, he can see the incarnation present before from all eternity and apply it's merits as he sees fit. He is God after all.

Ah, the problems with the Vatican's score board of merits rears its ugly head once again.

So you have a useless dogma which does not keep the Law, which no prophet foretold, which no Evangelist nor Apostle proclaimed. We have not received it in the Faith once and for all delievered to the Saints, who knew no such speculation that removes everlasting boundaries and overpasses the divine tradition. Yet you are stuck to honor it, seeking beyond the honor in which the Fathers held the Holy Theotokos, not satisfied with that but following the twisted logic of potuit, decuit ergo fecit and the false sylllogism of your supreme pontiff, who not from the Apostolic Confession did he seek to glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne of his Orthodox predecessors he sought to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession-althogh the truth is the other way-predicating salvation on confessing his ex cathedra dictate, not satisfied with the Apostolic preaching nor content for the Faithful to abide by it, thinking he knew better than Him Who revealed that which it was to our profit to know; but what we were unable to bear He kept secret, as knowing all things, therefore, and providing for what is profitable for each.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church? This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.

You would be much closer to the Catholic point of view if you say that the Catholic asks if it is good, if it is possible, if it fits better with Tradition to indicate that the person of the Theotokos never was separated from the saving grace of the Divine Trinity. To us the answer is that it is possible, and that it is good, and that it fits well with Tradition to say that the Theotokos was never separated from the saving grace of God.

That would be some better rather than always going back to the trough of necessity, because that is something added on by outsiders....

M.

Suppose your views fit only with a part of tradition, while the other part of tradition seems to support a different view. Would it be okay to end it with a "theologomenoun" rather than a dogma? Or is a dogma simply an acceptable belief, not always necessarily something that is not okay to reject (notice double negative).

Someone in another thread just quoted St. Ephrem as showing that the Incarnation of Christ "purified" the Theotokos by first sending the Holy Spirit upon her. That falls well within what I believe to be the tradition that the Theotokos was not immaculately conceived if she needed "purification."

The book of Hebrews also says that Christ was "made perfect" through suffering. Was he not already perfect?

Perfection and purification are two different things. It is never written that Christ was "purified." But Christ did take humanity, and made it perfect, through growth in stature and wisdom, and through suffering. Perfection is a degree of growth, which befits the Incarnate Word's human nature (he also "learned obedience"); purification is a taking away of filth, which does not befit Christ at all.

So you don't think that Christ was perfect even from the time of his Incarnation?

If perfection is a stage of growth, then He was perfect from day one, but gets more perfect day after day. God became man, and people would be like, "Wow, that's perfect!" God suffered, and people would be like, "Wow, that's even more perfect!"

And you don't think purity can work in the same way? You don't think that you will be more pure 1000 years after being in heaven than you were the day you entered heaven?

Yet another argument against the IC.

Brw "And Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and men." St. Luke 2:52.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church? This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.

You would be much closer to the Catholic point of view if you say that the Catholic asks if it is good, if it is possible, if it fits better with Tradition to indicate that the person of the Theotokos never was separated from the saving grace of the Divine Trinity. To us the answer is that it is possible, and that it is good, and that it fits well with Tradition to say that the Theotokos was never separated from the saving grace of God.

That would be some better rather than always going back to the trough of necessity, because that is something added on by outsiders....

M.

Suppose your views fit only with a part of tradition, while the other part of tradition seems to support a different view. Would it be okay to end it with a "theologomenoun" rather than a dogma? Or is a dogma simply an acceptable belief, not always necessarily something that is not okay to reject (notice double negative).

Someone in another thread just quoted St. Ephrem as showing that the Incarnation of Christ "purified" the Theotokos by first sending the Holy Spirit upon her. That falls well within what I believe to be the tradition that the Theotokos was not immaculately conceived if she needed "purification."

The book of Hebrews also says that Christ was "made perfect" through suffering. Was he not already perfect?

Perfection and purification are two different things. It is never written that Christ was "purified." But Christ did take humanity, and made it perfect, through growth in stature and wisdom, and through suffering. Perfection is a degree of growth, which befits the Incarnate Word's human nature (he also "learned obedience"); purification is a taking away of filth, which does not befit Christ at all.

So you don't think that Christ was perfect even from the time of his Incarnation?

If perfection is a stage of growth, then He was perfect from day one, but gets more perfect day after day. God became man, and people would be like, "Wow, that's perfect!" God suffered, and people would be like, "Wow, that's even more perfect!"

And you don't think purity can work in the same way? You don't think that you will be more pure 1000 years after being in heaven than you were the day you entered heaven?

Yet another argument against the IC.

Brw "And Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and men." St. Luke 2:52.

I don't wish to sidetrack this thread, but does this imply that Christ went through a process of theosis (in some way)? I mean, I know he was fully God at the incarnation, but perhaps the flesh required this process? If the subject is complicated and requires more than a simple answer perhaps i'll start another thread.

To add to what I posted, I know St. Augustine said we shouldn't question her sinlessness. But St. Augustine also elsewhere said that no one except Christ was born without Original Sin (he even mentions Mary by name). St. Augustine defines "sin" in two ways, the manifest, our actions, and the hidden, the Original Sin. I'm sure St. Augustine has no problem with saying that the Theotokos is sinless in all things except "Original Sin."

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

I think both sides are talking about two different things completely (wounded nature is not the same as "sinful nature" as the Catholics believe, i.e. it's not a matter of "nature" but a matter of "grace" that lies in the difference of doctrines).

I think the question is quite succinctly, is it necessary that the Theotokos has to be conceived in a similar way we are baptized into the Church? This is what Catholics believe, and this is what Orthodox reject.

You would be much closer to the Catholic point of view if you say that the Catholic asks if it is good, if it is possible, if it fits better with Tradition to indicate that the person of the Theotokos never was separated from the saving grace of the Divine Trinity. To us the answer is that it is possible, and that it is good, and that it fits well with Tradition to say that the Theotokos was never separated from the saving grace of God.

That would be some better rather than always going back to the trough of necessity, because that is something added on by outsiders....

M.

Suppose your views fit only with a part of tradition, while the other part of tradition seems to support a different view. Would it be okay to end it with a "theologomenoun" rather than a dogma? Or is a dogma simply an acceptable belief, not always necessarily something that is not okay to reject (notice double negative).

Someone in another thread just quoted St. Ephrem as showing that the Incarnation of Christ "purified" the Theotokos by first sending the Holy Spirit upon her. That falls well within what I believe to be the tradition that the Theotokos was not immaculately conceived if she needed "purification."

The book of Hebrews also says that Christ was "made perfect" through suffering. Was he not already perfect?

Perfection and purification are two different things. It is never written that Christ was "purified." But Christ did take humanity, and made it perfect, through growth in stature and wisdom, and through suffering. Perfection is a degree of growth, which befits the Incarnate Word's human nature (he also "learned obedience"); purification is a taking away of filth, which does not befit Christ at all.

So you don't think that Christ was perfect even from the time of his Incarnation?

If perfection is a stage of growth, then He was perfect from day one, but gets more perfect day after day. God became man, and people would be like, "Wow, that's perfect!" God suffered, and people would be like, "Wow, that's even more perfect!"

And you don't think purity can work in the same way? You don't think that you will be more pure 1000 years after being in heaven than you were the day you entered heaven?

Yet another argument against the IC.

Brw "And Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and men." St. Luke 2:52.

I don't wish to sidetrack this thread, but does this imply that Christ went through a process of theosis (in some way)? I mean, I know he was fully God at the incarnation, but perhaps the flesh required this process? If the subject is complicated and requires more than a simple answer perhaps i'll start another thread.

I don't think we can say Christ went through a theosis. His human nature underwent growth and learning and perfection like any other innocent human being. Christ is the source of theosis for all ages, but He did not undergo theosis. Rather, He blesses rituals (like baptism) and human nature (even in growth, suffering, and temptation) to ordain for us a means of theosis, not to be in theosis Himself. Theosis is for those who are not by nature God, like the fathers say, "God became man so that man might become God."

Nestorianism seems to hold an idea that Christ underwent theosis.

« Last Edit: January 12, 2011, 03:24:52 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

To add to what I posted, I know St. Augustine said we shouldn't question her sinlessness. But St. Augustine also elsewhere said that no one except Christ was born without Original Sin (he even mentions Mary by name). St. Augustine defines "sin" in two ways, the manifest, our actions, and the hidden, the Original Sin. I'm sure St. Augustine has no problem with saying that the Theotokos is sinless in all things except "Original Sin."

Unfroturnately we simply don't know. I wish St. Augustine was here to ask.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

But purity is a washing away of something, taking away something that doesn't belong. It's not a stage of growth. Can we say of Christ that He was purified?

Can we say that we are "purified" during Baptism? Probably without too much push-back...But does it really reflect what has happened to us during Baptism? I think it is better to stick to the Catholic teaching concerning the Immaculate Conception for the time that it is a contested teaching...and that teaching is that the Immaculate Conception means that the Mother of God came into being with her intellect enlightened and her will strengthened. In all other matters she had a human nature with all of its flaws and we will all have that nature, regardless of our Baptism, till Jesus comes again and we arise in our glorified bodies.

And as to your earlier question: This is just my opinion, but I believe that should we arrive at a resumption of communion tomorrow, there would be nothing further asked of Orthodoxy concerning the Mother of God. IN other words, there would be no pressure to add a feast of the Immaculate Conception to the calendar, for example. I do think that there would be a request made that Orthodox clergy and bishops not speak of the Immaculate Conception as heresy, or to teach against it...I think that would be the extent of things.

But purity is a washing away of something, taking away something that doesn't belong. It's not a stage of growth. Can we say of Christ that He was purified?

Can we say that we are "purified" during Baptism? Probably without too much push-back...But does it really reflect what has happened to us during Baptism? I think it is better to stick to the Catholic teaching concerning the Immaculate Conception for the time that it is a contested teaching...and that teaching is that the Immaculate Conception means that the Mother of God came into being with her intellect enlightened and her will strengthened. In all other matters she had a human nature with all of its flaws and we will all have that nature, regardless of our Baptism, till Jesus comes again and we arise in our glorified bodies.

I do believe we are purified in a way during baptism. Absolutely. :-)

Quote

And as to your earlier question: This is just my opinion, but I believe that should we arrive at a resumption of communion tomorrow, there would be nothing further asked of Orthodoxy concerning the Mother of God. IN other words, there would be no pressure to add a feast of the Immaculate Conception to the calendar, for example. I do think that there would be a request made that Orthodox clergy and bishops not speak of the Immaculate Conception as heresy, or to teach against it...I think that would be the extent of things.

M.

How about teaching an alternative view that some of the OO Church fathers took, like immaculate annunciation?

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

But purity is a washing away of something, taking away something that doesn't belong. It's not a stage of growth. Can we say of Christ that He was purified?

Can we say that we are "purified" during Baptism? Probably without too much push-back...But does it really reflect what has happened to us during Baptism? I think it is better to stick to the Catholic teaching concerning the Immaculate Conception for the time that it is a contested teaching...and that teaching is that the Immaculate Conception means that the Mother of God came into being with her intellect enlightened and her will strengthened. In all other matters she had a human nature with all of its flaws and we will all have that nature, regardless of our Baptism, till Jesus comes again and we arise in our glorified bodies.

I do believe we are purified in a way during baptism. Absolutely. :-)

Quote

And as to your earlier question: This is just my opinion, but I believe that should we arrive at a resumption of communion tomorrow, there would be nothing further asked of Orthodoxy concerning the Mother of God. IN other words, there would be no pressure to add a feast of the Immaculate Conception to the calendar, for example. I do think that there would be a request made that Orthodox clergy and bishops not speak of the Immaculate Conception as heresy, or to teach against it...I think that would be the extent of things.

M.

How about teaching an alternative view that some of the OO Church fathers took, like immaculate annunciation?

Do you believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary Sinned before the Annunciation?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

But purity is a washing away of something, taking away something that doesn't belong. It's not a stage of growth. Can we say of Christ that He was purified?

Can we say that we are "purified" during Baptism? Probably without too much push-back...But does it really reflect what has happened to us during Baptism? I think it is better to stick to the Catholic teaching concerning the Immaculate Conception for the time that it is a contested teaching...and that teaching is that the Immaculate Conception means that the Mother of God came into being with her intellect enlightened and her will strengthened. In all other matters she had a human nature with all of its flaws and we will all have that nature, regardless of our Baptism, till Jesus comes again and we arise in our glorified bodies.

I do believe we are purified in a way during baptism. Absolutely. :-)

Quote

And as to your earlier question: This is just my opinion, but I believe that should we arrive at a resumption of communion tomorrow, there would be nothing further asked of Orthodoxy concerning the Mother of God. IN other words, there would be no pressure to add a feast of the Immaculate Conception to the calendar, for example. I do think that there would be a request made that Orthodox clergy and bishops not speak of the Immaculate Conception as heresy, or to teach against it...I think that would be the extent of things.

M.

How about teaching an alternative view that some of the OO Church fathers took, like immaculate annunciation?

On the first point I then think you need to be very careful about how you understand "purification"...which leads to the second point: which is that one needs to be very careful about how one would understand a so-called purification at the moment of the annunciation: In other words, if one sees theosis as an ongoing process of plateaus and peak moments then surely the Annunciation would be one of those peak moments to remember

But to suggest that the Mother of God...peaked and troughed with the rest of us up to that time, certainly is not supported in Orthodox liturgical prayer.

BTW when you finally get to the plateau and peak point of theosis and quit falling into the troughs let me know...I am dying to know what that is like!!

But purity is a washing away of something, taking away something that doesn't belong. It's not a stage of growth. Can we say of Christ that He was purified?

Can we say that we are "purified" during Baptism? Probably without too much push-back...But does it really reflect what has happened to us during Baptism? I think it is better to stick to the Catholic teaching concerning the Immaculate Conception for the time that it is a contested teaching...and that teaching is that the Immaculate Conception means that the Mother of God came into being with her intellect enlightened and her will strengthened. In all other matters she had a human nature with all of its flaws and we will all have that nature, regardless of our Baptism, till Jesus comes again and we arise in our glorified bodies.

I do believe we are purified in a way during baptism. Absolutely. :-)

Quote

And as to your earlier question: This is just my opinion, but I believe that should we arrive at a resumption of communion tomorrow, there would be nothing further asked of Orthodoxy concerning the Mother of God. IN other words, there would be no pressure to add a feast of the Immaculate Conception to the calendar, for example. I do think that there would be a request made that Orthodox clergy and bishops not speak of the Immaculate Conception as heresy, or to teach against it...I think that would be the extent of things.

M.

How about teaching an alternative view that some of the OO Church fathers took, like immaculate annunciation?

On the first point I then think you need to be very careful about how you understand "purification"...which leads to the second point: which is that one needs to be very careful about how one would understand a so-called purification at the moment of the annunciation: In other words, if one sees theosis as an ongoing process of plateaus and peak moments then surely the Annunciation would be one of those peak moments to remember

But to suggest that the Mother of God...peaked and troughed with the rest of us up to that time, certainly is not supported in Orthodox liturgical prayer.

BTW when you finally get to the plateau and peak point of theosis and quit falling into the troughs let me know...I am dying to know what that is like!!

M.

I'm not asking whether you agree or not. I'm simply asking would you allow us to teach this?

Baptism is the first step by which one becomes ready to begin theosis. It's a step of purification and engrafting. Does not baptism "remove Original Sin?" Is this not purification?

To answer Papist's question, no, I don't personally believed she committed a sin, but I do believe she was "conceived in sin" as the Psalmist would say.

And I ask for you likewise, Mary, if you ever reach that peak point, let me know how that feels too

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Here is Melkite Bishop John Elya answering a inquirer's question regarding the IC:

Relationship between Melkites and the Pope: What is the relationship between our Bishops and the Pope? Are we obliged to accept dogmas like "The Immaculate Conception as it is defined by Rome? Why are there differences in the way the Pope is commemorated between the various Eastern rites?

Bishop John Elya's answer:

The truth is one, although interpreted in different ways, depending on where you stand. However, the same object could not be white for you and black for me, and we still pretend that we are both right. East and West see reality under different angles sometimes, in complicated manners hard to explain here in short terms. Some people enjoy finding differences, and other (as I try to do as often as I can) focus on what unites us rather than on what separates us. In all cases, if we are Catholic, then we have to accept all Catholic dogmas.

You are right to think that " we are one of many Eastern autonomous Churches (self-governing) as the Ukrainians, the Ruthenians and other self-governing (sui juris) Eastern Catholic Churches. We hold that the Pope of Rome is infallible in important matters of faith and morality, when he speaks "ex cathedra", in his position as the visible head of the Catholic Church. We may interpret these dogmas in "Eastern" terms; however, we are not allowed to deny their truth without breaking the bond of unity with the Pope of Rome, the successor of St. Peter the Rock.

You are right also that we commemorate the Pope of Rome only once, namely at the end of the Anaphora. However, the exact mandated translation is "FIRST, Lord, remember His Holiness N. Pope of Rome, His Beatitude … etc." Regardless of linguistic or historic pretexts, "Among the first" translation has been repeatedly prohibited by me, as Melkite Eparch, and by my predecessors. I consider persisting in using "among the first…" in our Melkite churches in America as an open defiance to legitimate authority.

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

c. 597 CCEO: "The Roman Pontiff, in virtue of his office (munus), possesses infallible teaching authority if, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful who is to confirm his fellow believers in the faith, he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held."

c. 599: :A religious obsequium of intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith, is to be paid to the teaching of faith and morals which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim with a definitive act.; therefore the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid whatever is not in harmony with that teaching."

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

But purity is a washing away of something, taking away something that doesn't belong. It's not a stage of growth. Can we say of Christ that He was purified?

Can we say that we are "purified" during Baptism? Probably without too much push-back...But does it really reflect what has happened to us during Baptism? I think it is better to stick to the Catholic teaching concerning the Immaculate Conception for the time that it is a contested teaching...and that teaching is that the Immaculate Conception means that the Mother of God came into being with her intellect enlightened and her will strengthened. In all other matters she had a human nature with all of its flaws and we will all have that nature, regardless of our Baptism, till Jesus comes again and we arise in our glorified bodies.

I do believe we are purified in a way during baptism. Absolutely. :-)

Quote

And as to your earlier question: This is just my opinion, but I believe that should we arrive at a resumption of communion tomorrow, there would be nothing further asked of Orthodoxy concerning the Mother of God. IN other words, there would be no pressure to add a feast of the Immaculate Conception to the calendar, for example. I do think that there would be a request made that Orthodox clergy and bishops not speak of the Immaculate Conception as heresy, or to teach against it...I think that would be the extent of things.

M.

How about teaching an alternative view that some of the OO Church fathers took, like immaculate annunciation?

On the first point I then think you need to be very careful about how you understand "purification"...which leads to the second point: which is that one needs to be very careful about how one would understand a so-called purification at the moment of the annunciation: In other words, if one sees theosis as an ongoing process of plateaus and peak moments then surely the Annunciation would be one of those peak moments to remember

But to suggest that the Mother of God...peaked and troughed with the rest of us up to that time, certainly is not supported in Orthodox liturgical prayer.

BTW when you finally get to the plateau and peak point of theosis and quit falling into the troughs let me know...I am dying to know what that is like!!

M.

I'm not asking whether you agree or not. I'm simply asking would you allow us to teach this?

Baptism is the first step by which one becomes ready to begin theosis. It's a step of purification and engrafting. Does not baptism "remove Original Sin?" Is this not purification?

To answer Papist's question, no, I don't personally believed she committed a sin, but I do believe she was "conceived in sin" as the Psalmist would say.

And I ask for you likewise, Mary, if you ever reach that peak point, let me know how that feels too

As long as it was not taught as a contradiction of the Immaculate Conception, or in any way referencing the Immaculate Conception as a heresy or heterodox teaching. Here is a fuller version of what Father Ambrose posted and it illustrates my point.

I do not happen to believe that the Latin rite does what the east says she does with original sin and I know without doubt that the east has no conception of what is actually taught in the Immaculate Conception...I speak broadly and generally here....I am aware that some do grasp the meanings.

So I cannot simply grab up the errors or latch on to the misunderstandings of the east simply because I translated into an eastern Catholic jurisdiction. That would be pretty stupid on my part I think. But as the Melkites express it below to the best of their ability, I think it is fine for now. But I do think it is something that needs to be worked on...in council

This feast is also called the "Maternity of Ann".This feast is not a Great Feast.

This feast is not one of the 12 Great Feasts.We truly believe in that the Theotokos is "pure, spotless, stainless, immaculate". But, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church does not make this event dogma because it is not essential for salvation, that is this event is not seen as specifically bearing on the life and mission of Holy God the Son within the Holy Trinity / Our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ.Latin Catholic Church

This privilege of the Theotokos, accepted throughout the centuries, was officially proclaimed as a dogma by Pope Pius IX in the year 1854. In the West, this Feast is called the Immaculate Conception and is celebrated on 8 Dec.Pius IX's unilateral declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was considered imprudent by Byzantine Catholics.

* Since the Byzantine Catholics and the Orthodox do not understand Original Sin in the same way as the Latins, the concept of the Immaculate Conception makes no sense in Eastern theology * The Byzantine Catholics and the Orthodox believe that only an Ecumenical Council can declare dogma.

Baptism is the first step by which one becomes ready to begin theosis. It's a step of purification and engrafting. Does not baptism "remove Original Sin?" Is this not purification?

To answer Papist's question, no, I don't personally believed she committed a sin, but I do believe she was "conceived in sin" as the Psalmist would say.

And I ask for you likewise, Mary, if you ever reach that peak point, let me know how that feels too

Couple of things here that had me thinking: The first is that I would be very careful about how you talk about "engrafting"...When one "grafts" successfully it is...short of genetic engineering...a melding of elements of the same species.

In the taxonomy of Baptism, the human is "Indwelled" by the divine. That is an act of a totally different order from a "grafting" of same species.

That leads me to comment that in order to be Indwelled by the Divine Trinity, one must, by definition be purified. But the idea of "purification" happens many times in a person's life when they lead a sacramental life of prayer, fasting and almsgiving. Theosis is, as we are all so fond of pointing out, a process...not an event.

But there is more that goes on in Baptism than some vague thing that we call purification

The spiritual stain of the original/ancestral sin is removed.

Both Catholics and Orthodox Catholics understand that spiritual stain to be what I have been calling a darkening of the intellect/soul and a weakened.

In Baptism we are Indwelled: our intellect/soul is illumined by this union with the divine and our will is strengthened, though we are still subject to the allure of evil and must continue to act in the service of the Lord to continue to gain spiritual strength to combat that allure.

This is also what my Catholic Church means by the Immaculate Conception. It deals strictly with this spiritual issue of an illumined soul and strengthened will. Like the rest of us she suffers the material consequences of the ancestral sin.

As to the spiritual life up close...I will be ecstatic when I hit a plateau and can stay there a minute

But purity is a washing away of something, taking away something that doesn't belong. It's not a stage of growth. Can we say of Christ that He was purified?

Can we say that we are "purified" during Baptism? Probably without too much push-back...But does it really reflect what has happened to us during Baptism? I think it is better to stick to the Catholic teaching concerning the Immaculate Conception for the time that it is a contested teaching...and that teaching is that the Immaculate Conception means that the Mother of God came into being with her intellect enlightened and her will strengthened. In all other matters she had a human nature with all of its flaws and we will all have that nature, regardless of our Baptism, till Jesus comes again and we arise in our glorified bodies.

I do believe we are purified in a way during baptism. Absolutely. :-)

Quote

And as to your earlier question: This is just my opinion, but I believe that should we arrive at a resumption of communion tomorrow, there would be nothing further asked of Orthodoxy concerning the Mother of God. IN other words, there would be no pressure to add a feast of the Immaculate Conception to the calendar, for example. I do think that there would be a request made that Orthodox clergy and bishops not speak of the Immaculate Conception as heresy, or to teach against it...I think that would be the extent of things.

M.

How about teaching an alternative view that some of the OO Church fathers took, like immaculate annunciation?

On the first point I then think you need to be very careful about how you understand "purification"...which leads to the second point: which is that one needs to be very careful about how one would understand a so-called purification at the moment of the annunciation: In other words, if one sees theosis as an ongoing process of plateaus and peak moments then surely the Annunciation would be one of those peak moments to remember

But to suggest that the Mother of God...peaked and troughed with the rest of us up to that time, certainly is not supported in Orthodox liturgical prayer.

BTW when you finally get to the plateau and peak point of theosis and quit falling into the troughs let me know...I am dying to know what that is like!!

M.

I'm not asking whether you agree or not. I'm simply asking would you allow us to teach this?

Baptism is the first step by which one becomes ready to begin theosis. It's a step of purification and engrafting. Does not baptism "remove Original Sin?" Is this not purification?

To answer Papist's question, no, I don't personally believed she committed a sin, but I do believe she was "conceived in sin" as the Psalmist would say.

And I ask for you likewise, Mary, if you ever reach that peak point, let me know how that feels too

As long as it was not taught as a contradiction of the Immaculate Conception, or in any way referencing the Immaculate Conception as a heresy or heterodox teaching. Here is a fuller version of what Father Ambrose posted and it illustrates my point.

I do not happen to believe that the Latin rite does what the east says she does with original sin and I know without doubt that the east has no conception of what is actually taught in the Immaculate Conception...I speak broadly and generally here....I am aware that some do grasp the meanings.

So I cannot simply grab up the errors or latch on to the misunderstandings of the east simply because I translated into an eastern Catholic jurisdiction. That would be pretty stupid on my part I think. But as the Melkites express it below to the best of their ability, I think it is fine for now. But I do think it is something that needs to be worked on...in council

This feast is also called the "Maternity of Ann".This feast is not a Great Feast.

This feast is not one of the 12 Great Feasts.We truly believe in that the Theotokos is "pure, spotless, stainless, immaculate". But, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church does not make this event dogma because it is not essential for salvation, that is this event is not seen as specifically bearing on the life and mission of Holy God the Son within the Holy Trinity / Our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ.Latin Catholic Church

This privilege of the Theotokos, accepted throughout the centuries, was officially proclaimed as a dogma by Pope Pius IX in the year 1854. In the West, this Feast is called the Immaculate Conception and is celebrated on 8 Dec.Pius IX's unilateral declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was considered imprudent by Byzantine Catholics.

* Since the Byzantine Catholics and the Orthodox do not understand Original Sin in the same way as the Latins, the concept of the Immaculate Conception makes no sense in Eastern theology * The Byzantine Catholics and the Orthodox believe that only an Ecumenical Council can declare dogma.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth